Brian Armstrong

It could be China.

It could be the US.

Could be Google.

Right.

And maybe whoever this person is, they might actually dump those coins on the market and crash the price for everybody else who was the responsible person who moved their coins in time.

So that's option A would be to basically freeze the coins that don't upgrade in time.

Now...

The option option B would be to say, you know what, this is a fundamental guarantee of Bitcoin is that your wealth can never be seized from you.

And it's actually worth preserving that even if some bad person is able to go out there or a good person and go grab some of these coins.

That's like a bounty.

It's a bounty for them to go take it.

Now, the person who failed to upgrade might actually lose their coins.

But at least we have preserved the integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain.

And I think that is also a valid point.

point of view.

And then there's maybe like a third hybrid option, which is kind of emerging, which is to say the coins would be frozen by a certain date, but there's an appeal mechanism by which you could try to convince people that actually you are the rightful owner of those coins in the future if you don't upgrade in time.

And the details of that are a little bit ambiguous at the moment.

There's various proposals, but that hopefully gives you a sense of a little bit of what the Bitcoin community will have to grapple with.

I don't think they've put out like a hard date at the moment.

They're mostly trying to help the community come together, just live in-person meetings to start to talk about what the options are and align on it and a path forward.